Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Progress!...avoidance of my previous post signals agreement.
Factual?....not quite.
One example: 90% sales decline is claimed.
As shown in my post #9438, the decline is only 83% and for a single quarter. This is cherry-picked data and does not show a trend.
Everyone should read post #9438 and see for yourself.
Consider the following 3 statements in your post:
Sales for Mexico are down almost 90% --FACT
There are no LABS --FACT
There is no PHARMA --FACT
All 3 statements have been shown to be false, but yet the post is never corrected and is repeated over and over. Why??
A post like this with provably false and misleading information makes one wonder about the veracity of the other statements. Here are the statements that most obviously misleading or outright false:
Sales for Mexico are down almost 90% (false and misleading)
Here is post #9438 in response to #9437:
You state that "Sales are down around 90% in Mexico (last quarter, another losing quarter they did a whopping 20k in sales!)"
Instead of just a snippit of information, lets take a look at the entire picture.
Sales (total revenue)
Annual (period ending)
6/30/16.....263k
6/30/15......86k
6/30/14.....529k
6/30/13.....153k
Quarterly (period ending)
3/31/17......21k
12/31/16....124k
9/30/16......36k
6/31/16......25k
3/31/16......77k
12/31/15.....70k
Looking closely at the data, one can see that yes, there was a large decline from the 12/31/16 quarter (124k) to the 3/31/17 quarter (21k). This is an 83% decline from the previous quarter. I presume this is supposed to be the 90% decline figure, but its not quite correct. Looking closer at the quarterly sales, one can see that the 124k is very large compared to the other quarterly sales, so the decline looks worse than it really is. Maybe a better measure is to average the 124k and the 21k? The average is 72.5k.
For fiscal year 2017, 2 quarters are reported with sales of 21k and 124k for a total of 145k. Assuming the same sales pace for the 2nd half of 2017, this would result in 290k sales for FY 2017.
Compare the 290k projection for 2017 with the previous 4 years:
2016 - 263k
2015 - 86k
2014 - 529k
2013 - 153k
The previous post would have you believe that sales are tanking when in fact they are holding pretty steady. The devil is in the details, so I encourage everyone to look closely at the details and to always consider the source of the posted information.
All data above is easily available on OTC Markets.
You state that "Sales are down around 90% in Mexico (last quarter, another losing quarter they did a whopping 20k in sales!)"
Instead of just a snippit of information, lets take a look at the entire picture.
Sales (total revenue)
Annual (period ending)
6/30/16.....263k
6/30/15......86k
6/30/14.....529k
6/30/13.....153k
Quarterly (period ending)
3/31/17......21k
12/31/16....124k
9/30/16......36k
6/31/16......25k
3/31/16......77k
12/31/15.....70k
Looking closely at the data, one can see that yes, there was a large decline from the 12/31/16 quarter (124k) to the 3/31/17 quarter (21k). This is an 83% decline from the previous quarter. I presume this is supposed to be the 90% decline figure, but its not quite correct. Looking closer at the quarterly sales, one can see that the 124k is very large compared to the other quarterly sales, so the decline looks worse than it really is. Maybe a better measure is to average the 124k and the 21k? The average is 72.5k.
For fiscal year 2017, 2 quarters are reported with sales of 21k and 124k for a total of 145k. Assuming the same sales pace for the 2nd half of 2017, this would result in 290k sales for FY 2017.
Compare the 290k projection for 2017 with the previous 4 years:
2016 - 263k
2015 - 86k
2014 - 529k
2013 - 153k
The previous post would have you believe that sales are tanking when in fact they are holding pretty steady. The devil is in the details, so I encourage everyone to look closely at the details and to always consider the source of the posted information.
All data above is easily available on OTC Markets
There are no LABS (false)
Labs to pill and package are contracted out.
There is no PHARMA (false)
Production, selling and marketing of drugs is pharma by definition.
So, if these 3 points are so easily debunked, then so the others are most likely bunk too.
Concering "cheap Chinese herb", yes the base ingedient is quite inexpensive and this makes for a nice profit margin. Remember too that the main competitor is Metformin which is based on the Lilac plant.
Again, as I have posted many times, no other application is required. This is Roth's option to apply for approval as a drug. There is no requirement from the FDA to do this.
Roth is focusing on selling in other countries where the FDA has no jurisdiction and is already approved (Mexico and Canada) and hopefully soon India.
Saying "denied" without clarification is meaningless.
FDA denied an application for over-the-counter (non-drug) sales.
The FDA says Sucanon is a drug. Of course, it will not be an approved FDA drug until it is submitted for approval as a drug, and of course after rigorous testing and certification.
A boat full of incorrect information in this post. A real whopper!
The Real Facts:
- The FDA did not deny any scam, just an application.
- There was no lie in the press release.
- Submitting drug approval to Compliance is optional.
- Sucanon has never been sold or marketed in the USA.
To say "There are no drugs approved by the FDA that aren't APPROVED DRUGS" is of course true, but to follow that with "This scam is not approved, DENIED, NOT ALLOWED IN THE USA" is false logic and is not true.
I would ask how can a product be denied FDA drug approval when an application for FDA drug approval has never been made?
Now don't put words in my mouth. You know darn well it is a drug per the FDA, but not an FDA approved drug. It could become an FDA approved drug after an application for drug approval is made and after testing.
No, not banned and not a scam. This has been covered numerous times in recent posts. All one has to do is read.
Roth is in good standing with the FDA and OTC Markets too.
Sorry, but not banned, not a fraud, and no other application is required. FDA says its a drug. Approved in Mexico and Canada, and soon India.
Your post is all wrong. Sucanon is not banned, not denied, not a scam, not a fraud either.
The simple truth is that the FDA says Sucanon is a drug. This is very clear in the FDA letter.
Yes, the application for over-the-counter sales was not approved because Sucanon is a drug. The FDA invited Roth to apply for approval as a drug, but please note that this is not mandatory and is Roth's option to apply.
Yes, the FDA is very clear....Sucanon is a drug.
Approved by the governments of Mexico, Canada, and soon India.
Seeing incorrect information posted over and over, even after it is pointed out, time and time again, really does a disservice to everyone here that is looking for facts.
As an engineer, I deal in facts. It is really disheartening to see incorrect information posted here on a board that is supposed to help investors and potential investors. Honorable people would never intentionally post incorrect information.
Yes, the FDA is very clear....Sucanon is a drug.
Approved by the governments of Mexico, Canada, and soon India.
Seeing incorrect information posted over and over, even after it is pointed out, time and time again, really does a disservice to everyone here that is looking for facts.
As an engineer, I deal in facts. It is really disheartening to see incorrect information posted here on a board that is supposed to help investors and potential investors. Honorable people would never intentionally post incorrect information.
There is no digging required. The FDA letter is very clear and it says Sucanon is a drug. The FDA never said Sucanon was a "health fraud". These are your words.
Many drugs are plant based and there is nothing wrong with that. Metformin for example is derived from the Lilac plant.
The FDA never said Sucanon was a "scam". These is your word.
You are wrong on both counts.
1)The FDA did not approve an application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE the FDA says its a drug.
2) The FDA never used the word "scam". This is your word and there is no supporting evidence presented.
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
Just as post #9437 claiming sales are down 90% is inacurate and misleading (see post #9439 for the details that paints an accurate picture), this post is just as incorrect and misleading.
Roth is not printing any stock. The press releases cited were true at the time they were done and the explanations for them have been previously explained by sweetlou. A lie, by definition, has to be known to be a lie at the time it is said.
As for your statement "Mike Irving a notorious associate of John Manion, DodI Handy and a plethora of scam companies that they all ran", everyone should note that Mike Irving is only the IR person for Roth and is not a Roth employee or executive, and the others mentioned have nothing to do with Roth. Mike Irving is well respected and was never convicted of anything, so the feeble attempts at what I call "guilt by association" are meaningless.
You say that "The scam company has changed names many times", but the truth is that it was Biotech Holding until that company went bankrupt, then the remnants of Biotech Holding were purchased by Fero Industries. This was not a name change, but rather just a transfer of property from one company to another. There was only one name change (not many as you claim) from Fero Industries to PharmaRoth Labs. Count them. There is only one.
You say "There is no Pharma going on here. NO LABS". The truth is that making drugs is pharma. There are labs, but they are contract labs used by Roth to manufacture and package the pills.
As for the claim that there is no one named Roth, this is correct, but so what? This is meaningless. Take the Tesla car company, a very successful company, there is nobody in the company named Tesla. Elon Musk is the founder. He is not a relative of Nicola Tesla.
The devil is in the dtails - always! I encourge all board readers to peel back the onion and do due diligence and to always consider the source of information presented here.
Holy cow Kyle!.....seriously, the financials have been consistent over the past several years as shown in detail per my earlier post today.
You state that "Sales are down around 90% in Mexico (last quarter, another losing quarter they did a whopping 20k in sales!)"
Instead of just a snippit of information, lets take a look at the entire picture.
Sales (total revenue)
Annual (period ending)
6/30/16.....263k
6/30/15......86k
6/30/14.....529k
6/30/13.....153k
Quarterly (period ending)
3/31/17......21k
12/31/16....124k
9/30/16......36k
6/31/16......25k
3/31/16......77k
12/31/15.....70k
Looking closely at the data, one can see that yes, there was a large decline from the 12/31/16 quarter (124k) to the 3/31/17 quarter (21k). This is an 83% decline from the previous quarter. I presume this is supposed to be the 90% decline figure, but its not quite correct. Looking closer at the quarterly sales, one can see that the 124k is very large compared to the other quarterly sales, so the decline looks worse than it really is. Maybe a better measure is to average the 124k and the 21k? The average is 72.5k.
For fiscal year 2017, 2 quarters are reported with sales of 21k and 124k for a total of 145k. Assuming the same sales pace for the 2nd half of 2017, this would result in 290k sales for FY 2017.
Compare the 290k projection for 2017 with the previous 4 years:
2016 - 263k
2015 - 86k
2014 - 529k
2013 - 153k
The previous post would have you believe that sales are tanking when in fact they are holding pretty steady. The devil is in the details, so I encourage everyone to look closely at the details and to always consider the source of the posted information.
All data above is easily available on OTC Markets.
To say there is a "ban" is misleading. The word ban implies that there were sales in the US and then sales were reuired to be stopped, but this is not the case as there were never sales in the US.
The fact is that Roth applied to the FDA to sell in the US over-the-counter, but this application was not approved as the FDA determined that Sucanon is a drug.
Roth respects the FDA and has never sold Sucanon in the US, therefore calling it a ban is quite misleading.
Quite to the contrary, Roth and Sucanon has everything to do with Metformin. The ABC hospital clinical trials compares Sucanon head to head with Metformin. As you can see below, if the end result is anywhere close to what is indicated by the information below, then Sucanon will get lots of attention. Remember too that Sucanon has no side effects, so even finishing a close second to Metformin would be huge as Metformin is known to be hard on kidneys.
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
If one holds the proper end of the shovel, one will find upon some light gigging, that The FDA was in fact extremely impressed with Sucanon, so impressed in fact they determined that Sucnon is a drug and invited Roth to submit an application for aproval as a drug.
As for active ingredient in Sucanon, many drugs are based on plant and other natural ingredients. For example, Metformin, one of the top selling diabetes drugs in the world at many billion dollars of sales per year, is based on the Lylac plant. Image that!
As for the continued use of the words "denied" and "scam" these words used alone are more like political campaign sound bytes and are meaningless. The truth is that the FDA did not approve Sucanon for over-the-counter sales because it is a drug. Sucanon was not denied by the FDA, but rahter the FDA declared it to be a drug. The FDA never used the word "scam".
The following posted information is not true:
1) Sucanon contains no active ingredients
2) Sucanon does not work
3) CEO Barry Hall is no longer with the company
4) FDA says Sucanon/Roth is a fraud and a scam
5) FDA denied Sucanon
All of these are untrue.
The Facts:
Sucanon works and contains active ingredients, Barry Hall is the CEO, the FDA says Sucanon is a drug, the FDA never said Sucanon/Roth is a scam or fraud, the FDA denied an application for over-the-counter sales because Sucanon is a drug.
The Stop sign has been removed and Roth is now current with OTC Markets.
All board readers should ask themselves why would it be necessary to modify a Consumer Reports article to falsely implicate Roth? (see post #4477)
Link please.
Excellent series of posts, sweetlou! I appreciate the detail and thoroughness as I'm sure most board readers do too.
Well, this one is down 98% since the last RS. If this company was going to make it, then it would have happened by now.
If someone doesn't have all the answers and they have a lot of questions, then they should put the questions like this to the company or the IR person. I can't say what I don't know.
And please post what you learn for the benefit of all board readers.
We know you will be unbiased....ahem
You also state "This fraud was denied by the FDA".
This is a totally false claim. First, the FDA never said Sucanon or Roth was a fraud. Secondy, the FDA did not deny Sucanon. They denied only an application for over-the-counter sales BECAUSE it is a drug.
This is where you are wrong. There is a study and it has been completed. As the study is very expensive, very comprehensive, and very important to the hospital, they are scrutinizing very carefully to make sure all "i" are dotted and all "t" are crossed before releasing. It is more important that it be 100% correct. Time to release is secondary.
You state that the comparison between Metformin and Sucanon is misleading? There is nothing misleading. If you wish to question something in my post, then please be specific as to what exactly you believe to be misleading.
sweetlou, thanks for posting this. I agree with your assessment. If the clinical trial results are anywhere close to what is expected, Sucanon should get some serious attention in the medical/drug community.
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.
This 'revoked' is a non-issue. Read Stockmaster's post and this is clearly not an issue.
Well, if you click at the very bottom of the page on "Actions/Amendments" and look at the second amendment, it says "COLORADO GOOD STANDING CERT"
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=qzvGB7fae1zQZShf8Zwe%252fQ%253d%253d&nt7=0
Where is the claim from? Link please!
Again, more misinformation. Here are the facts:
1) The FDA did not "deny his health fraud". They denied only an aplication for over-the-counter sales.
2) The FDA never used the word "fraud".
3) The FDA invited Roth to apply for approval of Sucanon as a drug.
4) The FDA says that Sucanon is a drug.
The following false claims have been posted recently:
1) Barry Hall is no longer with the company
2) Sucanon does not work
3) Sucanon has no active ingredients
4) Sucanon is a health fraud
5) Sucanon is not a drug
Always consider the source.
The Stop has been removed on OTC Markets.
Not quite.......FDA denied an application, not Sucanon. The FDA never called Sucanon a fraud. This is your word and you cannot produce a document where the FDA uses the word fraud.
Everyone, let us not lose sight of the big picture. Forget the $762 and $265 in the bank. Metformin is billions of dollars of sales per year in the US alone. Sucanon may prove to be just as good if not better.
A quick comparison of Sucanon vs Metformin as to which reduces blood sugar more. This is pretty unscientific but it looks like results should be very similar based on a "head-to-head" competition.
Metformin:
http://www.diabetesnet.com/about-diabetes/diabetes-medications/metformin
The 3rd paragraph says:
Metformin lowers fasting blood glucose levels by an average of 25% (17 to 37%), postprandial blood glucose up to 44.5%, and the A1c by an average of 1.5% (0.8 to 3.1%).
Sucanon:
http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_summary.asp
Clinical studies have shown that Sucanon® reduces blood sugar readings by about 25% - 30% and brings high blood sugar back into the normal range (non-fasting blood sugar is above 200 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or fasting blood sugar is above 126 mg/dL).
More test info: http://www.pharmaroth.com/clinical_results.asp
Looks like it should be a really close competition, but even if Sucanon comes in a little worse than Metformin, Sucanon has no negative side effects.